|
Tactics
Sept 7, 2007 19:50:32 GMT -6
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Sept 7, 2007 19:50:32 GMT -6
I grabbed the following from a different thread and wanted to expand on it a bit. Incidentally, I've always had three abreast in marching order for 10' wide passageways. But I played briefly with Frank Mentzer at LGGC, and if I recall correctly, he said it could only be two abreast. *shrug* I still think three abreast is fine, especially since you don't stay exactly in formation when combat breaks out. Regards. If you take space required for weapons into account, it's probably 2 abreast for melee (depending on weapons), but 3 abreast would be fine for general movement. I have always found that 3 abreast is fine for general movement depending on the size of the player characters. If you have smaller characters 3 abreast works fine, but if you have fighters that are over 6 feet tall and they are heavily armored you might want to limit it to 2 abreast even for general movement. The reason for this is when something happens you don't want to be getting in each others way. In addition, you don't want to be walking too close to the walls. Furthermore, you might want to be able to quickly shuffle people from the front to the back or vice versa. Let me ask a question here, if there is a melee in a dungeon corridor what formation would you drop into. Two abreast in front, then two, then two etc or one in front, then two abreast, then one, then two etc or some other arrangement. How would you do it, and who would be where and why would you do it that way. Assume for the sake of arguement that the dungeon party consists of 5 fighting men, 4 clerics, 3 magic users, and 2 thieves. Two of the fighters are dwarves, two of the magic-users are elves and one of the thieves is an elf. Everyone else is human. Everyone is at 3rd level. Assume that everyone has average stats and no magic weapons or other items. Assume that they are opposed by a party of monsters that on paper is just a bit more powerful and the party has made that same accessment in the first seconds of the encounter.
|
|
|
Tactics
Sept 7, 2007 21:48:21 GMT -6
Post by thorswulf on Sept 7, 2007 21:48:21 GMT -6
O.k. lets lift back the curtain of fantasy a moment, and not suspend our disbelief. Unless the front rank are really short the second rank will probably fire missles over their heads. But what about the third rank? They can't see jack because the misslemen are blocking their Line of Sight. Not only that but the misslemen have nowhere to go so the slice and dicers can get into the scrum. Outdoors where space is more open this isn't a problem. In a dungeon good luck using a polearm or two handed sword, they will probably smack the ceiling!
When I think about fighting in a small space, I think about what the Roman Legion did. Big shields, short thrusting weapons, and hand hurled missles work in a small space. Consider a scutum as a small portable wall, and you see how this prevents anyone from getting around for a flank attack. Mind you a Saxon Shieldwall is a good example too, as several ranks can thrust out with spears or hack down with axes. One last thing to ponder, how many legs and feet were severely damaged in this kind of fighting? Lots, but unless you use hit location rules this isn't really important. Mind you warriors trained to fight in close order should be considered their shielded AC from all attacks. Just my two coppers worth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Tactics
Sept 7, 2007 23:52:43 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2007 23:52:43 GMT -6
Hmmm...Interesting. Let's see. 1st rank=2 fighting-men armed with shields & spears. 2nd rank=1 magic-user ( magic missile OR sleep memorized a couple of times, hopefully) & 1 thief (armed with a short bow) - both characters staggered. 3rd rank=2 more fighting-men. As for the rest of the party, well, they can't really do much but await their turn & provide as ancillaries to the skirmish. Here's a very simple diagram: Note: - = shield -F-F M T -F-F M T M C C C C -F Yeah, I know the diagram pretty much blows, but that's the best I could do. Anywhoo, in this scenario (as for most, as far my opinion can be thrown), the size of the dwarven fighting-men aren't really that great of an advantage over a human...their really not that short to make them any easier to shoot over [halflings could be a point of discussion, however]). I have some miniatures laid out on my hex-grid now for this, &, to me, it seems to be the best ratio for (a) damage, & (b) logistics. You can expedite reinforcement to the front easily by mirroring the lines (to a point, of course), & I chose to pair up the magic-user & thief for a balance of maximum killing power, while conserving (& considering the loss of) human (err... party member) resources. As for the clerics, well, they can move too (in case they need to fight or heal), & the lone fighter, paired up with the cleric, isn't there to really join in the fray, but to C.Y.A. in the event of a, um, strategic withdrawl. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Again, I am quite confident this would be a winning strategy (as long as your troops can maneuver, your still doing OK) but, then again, I'm the lone chaotic fighting-man in the rear of the party, so, what the hell do I care... ;D An EXALT to you, Crimhthan_The_Great, for a fun strategic exercise. EDIT: I can't seem to get this god d**n diagram to align itself right, but, anyway, yaknowwhutImean, right Vern? ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Tactics
Sept 8, 2007 6:27:54 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 8, 2007 6:27:54 GMT -6
Back to the general question of 2 or 3 people abreast in combat, consider the size of a 10-foot room. Many standard bedrooms are roughly 10x10 feet in size, so think about how many could stand side by side and swing weapons.
The idea of Romans side-by-side with interlocking shields and thrusting spears is an interesting one, and I could see 3-4 wide in a case like this but only if all party members in the row are thrusting with spears.
When swinging a sword, however, it's a different matter entirely. Stand two people side-by-side, each swinging yardsticks or something similar and see what room you have left. I'm thinking that those two people really fill up a 10-foot room in a hurry.
In addition to the side-by-side issue, consider saving throws. I presume that a saving throw is not just taking a spell (or whatever) in the teeth but being able to dodge as well as resist. This would be similar in philosophy to the intent behind the hit point. So ... those Roman Legionaries might not be able to avoid something coming their way because they are too tightly packed in a small space. The DM might consider giving them a negative to a save for this reason.
Just me thinkin'
|
|
|
Tactics
Sept 16, 2007 8:44:10 GMT -6
Post by philotomy on Sept 16, 2007 8:44:10 GMT -6
They Greyhawk rules for space required start listing minimum space at 4' (on each side), which would mean a single fighter with such a weapon (e.g. a battle axe) would need 8' of open space. No minimum space is listed for swords, but I think three fighters with short swords could manage in a 10' wide space. I don't think that's true of three fighters with 'normal swords' or longswords, though; I'd say two, at maximum.
I'm going to break a taboo and cite the AD&D space required for a longsword: 3'. I read that as 3' on each side (i.e. like OD&D's space required listings). In that case, two fighters with longswords would require 12' of space, total. A 10' wide cooridor would be constricting to them.
So if you use these rules/guidelines, and the PCs don't really have enough space, what do you do? In the case of two fighters with longswords, I think I'd allow them to fight abreast in a 10' space, but perhaps given them a small penalty on their attack rolls.
How about this case: a fighter with a battle axe in a 5' wide passage. If the fighter walks right beside the wall, he'd have enough room (i.e. 4') to swing his weapon on one side. Would not having room to follow-through affect his attack roll? (Getting pretty nit-picky, now.)
Also, I don't know if I'd want to use space-required rules all the time (often you could probably just play it by ear, if you wanted to address it at all), but it does appeal to my tactical-games-enthusiast side. And it makes weapon choice important (even if you're using 1d6 for all weapons, you could still use weapon length and space required to determine first strikes, how many people can fight abreast, et cetera). And I like the idea of "corridor tactics" vs. "open space tactics." I like the idea of the fighters switching to shortswords in the tunnels, or staggering their formation because the cleric has a morning star. Stuff like that is interesting, to me.
|
|
|
Tactics
Sept 16, 2007 21:27:57 GMT -6
Post by thorswulf on Sept 16, 2007 21:27:57 GMT -6
Somewhere else I mentioned a real life exercise in employing a shield as a weapon. I think it was the Spear Topic. The upshot is D&D isn't the world's best tactical miniature wargame, but it wasn't meant to be that anyway! Like the rulebook says, add your imagination. My imagination has a lot more practical applications of subtle force! Other games have rules for shield bashes, and really all OD&D needs to do is add +1 or +2 to hit with a normal shield in combat for a bash attack. Why the bonus? Shields are BIG, and LIGHT for what they are! You can use the edge to crush or break bones, stun, and all sorts of other interpersonal mayhem! Real warriors used their best defense as an offense, and so should D&D warriors. Don't like the rule? Allow only characters of a barbaric backgound to use it then. The vikings used their shields like this in the sagas, as did the Celts to a certain degree.
Strength should play into this as well. A fighter with an 18 strength should be able to bully and bash his way through most monsters with less than 1 hit die. Kobolds and Goblins are prime candidates for the rough stuff. Orcs and tougher monsters should be able to put up a better fight. But then what is an average orc's strength? I would guess something in the 12-16 range as they bully lesser races. Leaders and bodyguards have a 15-18 range, and so forth. So what does all this mean game wise? Take our two fighters with shields in the frontrank. They could opt to use their shields to push back an attack, causing the monsters on the other side to be shoved back one map square. If they have nowhere to go, then they had better fight back, or push back. Just some ideas.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Tactics
Sept 19, 2007 18:39:47 GMT -6
Post by Stonegiant on Sept 19, 2007 18:39:47 GMT -6
In the tunnel/corridor setting IMO spears, daggers, short swords, crossbows would reign supreme in this terrain. A great book to read to get a feel for fighting in a confined area is The Tunnels of Cu Chi, it relates the experiences of the US army's Tunnel Rat force and their experiences fighting the VC in their huge (area wise) tunnel complexes. They speak of spear and arrow boobytraps, traps with snakes and other venomoous creatures. The VC tunnels ranged in size from tunnels you had to crawl on your stomache to get through to tunnels 15+ feet wide. It is an awesome book.
|
|
|
Tactics
Sept 20, 2007 1:29:52 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Sept 20, 2007 1:29:52 GMT -6
I agree; I read that book years and years ago.
It also points up the difficulty of finding secret doors. They take tourists through the tunnels, and in one room there's a trap door. The tourists are invited to search for it, but (at the time of publication anyway), no one had found it.
No elves on the tour groups, I guess!
|
|